Heritage Place Of Decatur
605 W Mulberry St, Decatur, TX 76234 · For profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (940) 627-5444 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 17.9% | 15.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.6% | 3.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.7% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 2.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 6.0% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 16.4% | 14.0% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.7% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.5% | 3.8% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 17.5% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 25.0% | 9.6% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.4% | 1.5% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 38.2% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.4% | 12.3% | 12.0% | typical |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.35 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 60% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 33% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.4%CMS range 7.1–17.7 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 51.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 3.5% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.15 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 60 beds and averages 43.8 residents a day — about 73% occupied, or roughly 16 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.99 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.33 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.61 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.52 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.18 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.33 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an Infection Prevention and Control Program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 3 residents (Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident #3) of 10 residents reviewed for infection control. The LPC, who was a vendor at the facility, failed to use appropriate PPE according to the facility's IPCP when visiting Residents #1, #2, and #3, who were on isolation precautions with confirmed COVID. This failure could place residents at risk for spread of infection through cross-contamination.Findings included: Resident #1Record review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 12/04/25, reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had a BIMS score of 14, which indicated her cognition was intact. The MDS Assessment under Section I-Active Diagnoses, reflected…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-11-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food safety in the facility's only kitchen and failed to ensure food, subject to spoilage and removed from its original container, was kept sealed, labeled, and dated for food service safety in the facility's only kitchen. 1. The facility failed to ensure the deep fryer was cleaned in accordance with professional standards. 2. The facility failed to ensure food items was properly labeled, dated, and thawed in accordance with professional standards. 3. The facility failed to ensure food items stored in the freezer were properly discarded. These failures could place residents at risk from food contamination and food-borne illness. Findings included:Observation on 09/28/25 at 9:08 AM, revealed the deep fryers was layered in grease with food spills and food particles. Observation on 09/28/25 at 9:11 AM, of the refrigerators revealed the following: - a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-21 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to implement its advance directives policy regarding obtaining and placing advanced directives in the clinical record for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #9), reviewed for do not resuscitate status. The facility failed to upload Resident #9's OOH DNR to her clinical record to ensure all staff were aware of her elected resuscitation status. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their end-of-life wishes honored.Findings included: Record review of Resident #9's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The residents' diagnoses included respiratory failure, and she had severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score (mental assessment) of 5. Record review of Resident #9's care plan initiated on [DATE] and revised on [DATE] reflected the resident was a full code status. The care plan interventions included initiating BLS CPR if the resident was without a heartbeat or not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-21 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide comfortable and safe temperature levels between 71 to 81 degrees Fahrenheit for 3 of 8 residents (Residents #11, #15, and #38) reviewed for environment.The facility failed to maintain comfortable temperature levels in Residents #11, #15, and #38's rooms.The failure placed residents at risk of a decreased quality of life. Findings included: Observations on 09/28/25 from 10:00 AM-10:30 AM revealed Resident #38 was sitting in his wheelchair in his room with a blanket wrapped around him. Observation on 9/28/25 at 10:10 AM, Resident #15 was sitting in her recliner in her room with a thick jacket on with a heavy blanket covering her.Observation on 9/28/25 at 10:30 AM, Resident #11 in bed with multiple blankets covering her. Observation om 9/28/25 at 10:20 AM of the thermostat in Hall A revealed it was set to 72 degrees F and Cooling. Observation of temperatures, using an ambient thermometer 0n 9/28/25 room temperatures were as follows:At 10:35 AM Resident #38's room temperature was 70 degrees F.At 10:40 AM Resident #15's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-21 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to coordinate assessments with the PASRR program under Medicaid in subpart C of this part to the maximum extent practicable for 2 of 5 residents (Residents #6 and #29) reviewed for PASRR Level 1 screenings.The facility did not correctly identify Resident #6 and #29 as having a mental illness and did not complete a new PASRR Level 1 Screening.These failures could place residents at risk of not being evaluated for PASRR services.Findings included:Record review of Resident #6's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 09/01/25, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female initially admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included: schizophrenia (disruptions in thought processes, perceptions emotional responsiveness, and social interactions), bipolar disorder (is a mental illness that causes clear shifts in a person's mood, energy activity levels, and concentrations), anxiety disorder (a condition that occurs when there is…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-21 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives and time frames to meet the resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychological needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #11) reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #11's psychosocial needs was identified in her care plan. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the care they need. Findings included:1.Record review of Resident #11's admission MDS, dated [DATE], reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included anxiety disorder, depression, psychotic disorder, and schizophrenia. The resident's cognition was intact with a BIMS score of 15. Record review of Resident #11's care plan, dated 08/16/25, reflected it addressed the resident's use of anti-psychotic…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #9) observed for wound care. RN D failed to sanitize his hands between gloves changes when providing wound care for Resident #9.The failure placed residents at risk for infection.Findings included: Record review of Resident #9's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The residents' diagnosis included respiratory failure. Resident #9 had a BIMS of 5 which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS further reflected Resident #9 was at risk of developing pressure ulcers/injuries.Record review of Resident #9's care plan revised on 09/22/25 reflected that she had a pressure ulcer to her left heel.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-08 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a private meeting space for the residents' monthly group meeting for 12 of 12 confidential residents reviewed for resident council. The facility failed to provide a private space for resident group meetings. This failure could place residents, who attended resident group meetings, at risk of not being able to voice concerns due to a lack of privacy. Findings included: Observation and interview on 08/07/24 beginning at 10:05 AM, during a confidential resident group meeting with 12 residents, revealed the meeting was held in the front lobby of the facility near the front door and the Administrator's office door. During this meeting, there were two signs posted. However, multiple staff walked through the space as well as people from the community. One resident stated she did not feel comfortable talking about issues due to staff and administration interrupting the meeting as well as when they have their monthly meetings. Interview on 08/08/24 at 03:54 PM, the Activity Director revealed she became the AD…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-08 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that menus were followed for 1 of 5 meals (breakfast [08/07/24]) reviewed for meal accuracy. The facility failed to follow the menu for breakfast on 08/07/24. This failure could place residents at risk for poor intake and weight loss. Findings included: Record review for breakfast menu for 08/07/24 reflected the following: Choice of juice, hot or cold cereal, fresh pasteurized eggs, bacon or sausage, breakfast bread, margarine/jelly, milk, coffee. Interview on 08/07/24 beginning at 10:05 AM, during a confidential resident group meeting with 12 residents, revealed residents were told they could not have eggs for breakfast on 08/07/24 because the kitchen was out of eggs. Observation of the kitchen on 08/07/24 at 11:29 AM revealed the kitchen had no eggs to serve for breakfast on 08/07/24. However, further observation revealed the foodservice company did deliver the eggs on 08/07/24 at 11:45 AM. Interview on 08/07/24 at 11:35 AM with the Dietary Manager revealed she had been employed for three months at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-08 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — patternKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain all mechanical, electrical, and patient care equipment in safe operating condition for 1 washing machine (Washer A) of 2 reviewed for essential equipment. The facility failed to maintain a laundry washing machine (Washer A) in operating condition. This failure could place residents at risk of not having clean linen for their beds. Findings included: Interview on 08/08/24 at 9:40 AM, Resident #39 stated the facility seemed to have a problem keeping up with linen. He stated a week prior he had to sleep on six bath towels after he had soiled his linen and staff said there were no clean sheets available. Resident #39 stated as President of the Resident Counsel he talked with all the residents, several of whom reported delays in getting their clothing back from laundry and a shortage of linen, especially on the weekends. Interview on 08/08/24 at 10:00 AM. the Laundry Aide stated one washing machine (Washer A) was out of service for a part on order, leaving her with one functioning washer. She stated the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-08 · tag F0635 — isolatedProvide doctor's orders for the resident's immediate care at the time the resident was admitted.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure at the time each resident was admitted the facility had a physician order for the resident's immediate care for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #43) reviewed for residents receiving care and services upon admission. The facility failed to ensure Resident #43 had a current physician's order for use of an indwelling catheter as well as its treatment and maintenance after readmission to the facility. The failure could place residents atresidents at risk for not receiving the necessary care and services. Findings included: Review of Resident #43's admission record dated 08/08/24 reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included unspecified fracture of left femur, unspecified fracture of right wrist and hand, vascular dementia, and retention of urine. Review of Resident #43's admission MDS assessment, dated 07/17/24, reflected a BIMS score was 00 indicating severely impaired…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-08 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident's person-centered comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment for 1 of 8 residents (Residents #29), reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to revise and update Resident #29's comprehensive care plan with new diet orders. These failures could affect residents of the facility by not addressing their physical, mental, and psychosocial needs for each to attain or maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial outcome. Findings included: Record review of the admission Record dated 8/8/24 revealed Resident #29 was a [AGE] year-old male initially admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including end stage renal disease, diabetes mellitus, acquired absence of right leg below the knee, congestive heart failure, unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition, and morbid obesity. Record review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-08 · tag F0801 — isolatedEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to designate a person to serve as the director of food and nutrition services who met at a minimum one of the following qualifications: a certified dietary manager or certified food service manager, or had a similar national certification for food service management and safety from a national certifying body, or had an associate's or higher degree in food service management or in hospitality, or had 2 or more years of experience in the position of food and nutrition services in a nursing faciltiy and had completed a course of study in food safety management for one of one Dietary Manager reviewed for qualifications. The Dietary Manager did not have the appropriate certification, education, or qualifications to serve as the Director of Food and Nutrition Services. This failure could place residents who consumed food prepared by staff in the kitchen at increased risk of food borne illness and not receiving adequate nutrition. Findings included: Record review of the staff roster provided by the facility, undated, reflected the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CREATIVE SOLUTIONS IN HEALTHCARE — 149 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 3.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
The other 148 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.1★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 148; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| HUGGINS, LINDA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 02/01/2021 |
| CREATIVE SOLUTIONS IN HEALTHCARE INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 02/01/2021 |
| BLAKE, GARY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 02/01/2021 |
| BLAKE, MALISA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 02/01/2021 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TX
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Texas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 675513. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-21, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.